Here is good reporting that you will want to check regularly.

Recently, I had the privilege of serving on a panel convened by Human Events Magazine that was assigned with the task of naming the 10 worst government programs. Other panelists included such luminaries as Larry Kudlow of Kudlow and Cramer fame, Walter Williams, one of the best-known economists in the country, and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (among others). The votes are now tallied and here is what we came up with. This was a weighted vote that included some 50 federal programs. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the panel’s choices, but it is a good listing and should provoke discussion.

The House has voted 218-209 for more restrictions on our freedom of speech. National Review editorializes:

We’re old enough to remember when the Republican mainstream was against restricting campaign finance. That was about four years ago. Way back then, House leaders were decrying McCain-Feingold as damaging to the GOP’s electoral fortunes and probably unconstitutional. How times change. The current crop of House leaders, acting with the White House’s blessing, is set to introduce legislation this week that would restrict the ability of so-called 527s — nonprofit groups named for the section of the tax code under which they operate — to raise money for political causes. Quite apart from the unseemliness of this about-face, the legislation deserves to be defeated. It is both politically unwise and, more important, an objectionable restriction on speech.

Tom Udall was the only New Mexico representative to stand tall against these restrictions. Jeff Flake and John Shadegg of Arizona and Ron Paul of Texas were among the 18 Republicans who are not shamed.

Education reform is an integral component of the Rio Grande Foundation’s mission. Of course, “reform” means different things to different people. Vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools are all possibilities and are worthy of varying levels of support. While New Mexico does not allow vouchers or tax credits, it does have a charter school law. That said, the complying with state and federal rules and regulations is no picnic for the charter school movement. This article gives you one man’s experience in navigating those tricky waters.

I was deeply saddened this morning to learn of the death of legal scholar Bernard Siegan. Here is a tribute to him by Mark Brnovich compliments of the Goldwater Institute:

Bernard Siegan Remembered
The impact of a property rights champion
by Mark Brnovich
March 31, 2006
I met Professor Bernard Siegan during my first year of law school. He had been rejected for an appointment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the year before and his spirits were dampened. The toll of political fights often takes place off camera, but it can be tremendous. Judge Bork’s memory still looms large in the national debate, but people often forget how the godfather of property rights, Bernie Siegan, was “Borked” by the same group of Senators.
Professor Siegan’s small office was packed with books about constitutional law and economic theory, a field of study in which he had been a giant contributor. As a lowly 1L, I was awed to be sitting with the author of The Supreme Court’s Constitution, Other People’s Property, Economic Liberties and the Constitution, and Property and Freedom.
I told him that his writings had a tremendous impact on me and that I couldn’t wait to take his con law class the next year. Taking a long shot, I asked him if he needed a research assistant. He looked surprised and told me that he was a “falling star” and recommended attaching myself to another professor. But I pressed on and he reluctantly began a tutelage that has had an enormous impact on my life.
Professor Siegan’s groundbreaking work focused on the negative impact of zoning regulations. In Land Use Without Zoning, he explained how Houston thrived without restrictive zoning regulations. To him, government planned “solutions” often resulted in higher housing costs, with the poor and middle classes usually taking the hardest hits.
Professor Siegan often pointed out that it was little wonder that the Constitution contains so many direct and indirect references to the importance of protecting property. Article I, Sections 9 & 10, provide that no state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contract. Respect for the supremacy of property can also be found in constitutional provisions prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in the 3rd amendment and the 4th Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Of course, the 5th and 14th Amendments both explicitly provide that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The Framers—strongly influenced by the writings of John Locke, William Blackstone, and Edward Coke—had created a system designed to maximize human freedom by protecting the means to acquire and maintain property. Professor Siegan wrote extensively about this, highlighting the important role that property rights played in human liberty. He understood that attacks on property rights were a threat to political liberty.
Professor Siegan’s message wasn’t simply an academic exercise. His books Drafting a Constitution for a Nation or Republic Emerging Into Freedom and Adopting a Constitution to Protect Freedom and Provide Abundance were blueprints for countries emerging from communism. Copies of his books were available in Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Spanish and many other languages. He was determined to see young nations recognize that economic growth was dependent on respecting property rights and establishing the rule of law.
A few months ago, I was in San Diego and met Professor Siegan for lunch. His body was tired, but his mind was still very sharp. We talked about his days at the University of Chicago and his work at the University of San Diego and the impact it would have on future students, lawyers, and judges. He wanted to talk about China and how impressed he was with their GDP and that they were moving to secure more property rights. He was trying to put together a conference to explore economic and property rights developments in China. If anyone could speed along China’s road to respecting economic and property rights, it would be him. Unfortunately, he ran out time.
Professor Siegan, always the gentlemen, insisted on paying for that lunch, pointing out that he was the professor and I was the assistant. Noting that conversation we had at our first meeting over 15 years earlier, I pointed out that his legal star had never fallen. To the contrary, his work serves as a guiding star for any serious scholar seeking to find the original intent of this nation’s founders.
Mark Brnovich is the former director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Studies.

I am thrilled to see GMU’s basketball team make it to the final four. But did you know that (unlike its basketball team) its Department of Economics has long been in the top tier? For more on Professor Buchanan look here. If you really want to understand economics, Don Boudreaux and Russ Roberts display clear explanations here. And, of course, many of you have probably heard Walter Williams on the radio.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal we learn that the state is receiving more money for education from the feds (SR). Nonetheless two-thirds of our school districts will receive less money!
That’s not all; APS feels it requires a tax hike to fund new school construction(SR). I wonder what they are doing with all the extra tax revenue from our recent growth?

Speaking of Henry Hazlitt, here is a nice tribute to one of Hazlitt’s inspirations, namely Professor F.A. Hayek — the greatest social scientist of the 20th century.

Get ready New Mexico. Maybe we should look at it as economic development for critter control companies; but with apolgies to Henry Hazlitt, of course.
HT: NCPA

Charles Murray has an interesting new idea to fix welfare. In essence, he proposes that everyone receive a lump sum welfare payment. The lump sum nature of the payment would virtually eliminate all adverse incentives to which welfare recipients are subject. And it would get much more money back to the people by eliminating the Gargantuan welfare bureacracies. Of course, the taxes needed to fund the lump sum payments would still punish productive behavior. But reducing the destructive effect on recipients would be a real advance.
For a detailed discussion of the destructive incentives of federal and state welfare programs in New Mexico look here (pp. 12-18).

My name is Paul Gessing and I am the new President of the Rio Grande Foundation. I have been in New Mexico working for the Foundation for three full weeks now and am finally getting around to introducing myself on this blog. I moved here from Washington, DC, where I headed up the lobbying efforts of the nation’s largest and oldest taxpayer advocacy organization, the National Taxpayers Union.
Although I spent more than eight years in Washington and am not a “native” of New Mexico, I am not a stranger to the “Land of Enchantment.” Most of my mom’s side of my family is from either Albuquerque or Santa Fe. I spent a great deal of time here over the years visiting my extended family. Although I have traveled around the state during many of these trips to visit Taos, the Very Large Array, and Farmington to name just a few, I look forward to getting to know the rest of the state.
As I work to move both the Rio Grande Foundation and the state of New Mexico forward, I will consistently look to our neighbors for guidance — specifically Colorado, Arizona, and Texas. Each of these states have uniquely positive political dynamics that are worth emulating ( they also happen to have healthy and well-run state level free market think tanks). Colorado, for example, is home of the Independence Institute, and the most effective spending limit in the country, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Texas is home to Texas Public Policy Institute, and the state has no income tax to chase productive citizens away. Lastly, Arizona is home to the Goldwater Institute. That state it is also the home of the greatest amount of educational freedom in the nation according to researcher Jay Greene.
In the months and years ahead, I will make it my life’s work to put New Mexico on a more free market path, thus raising the standards of living for all of the state’s citizens. The Rio Grande Foundation, and the state free market think tank movement are amazing and effective vehicles for these ideas and I look forward to coming up with new ideas for New Mexico-specific problems and bringing existing ideas that have proven effective elsewhere, to the state. I am looking forward to this unique and challenging opportunity!

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund (sr)gives us this update today:

Justice Won’t Be a Regular at Motel 6
Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s home has been saved from possible
condemnation by his neighbors in Weare, N.H. Some locals and a few
well-heeled outsiders were furious that he formed part of the 5-4
majority in last year’s infamous Kelo decision. Because that ruling
effectively expanded the rights of governments to seize property for
private use through eminent domain, Kelo critics launched a campaign to
seize the farmhouse that serves as Mr. Souter’s local home and replace
it with a hotel that would bring in more property-tax revenue.
Yesterday, residents of Weare voted by 1,167 to 493, a 70% majority, in
favor of a measure that asked local officials not to use their power of
eminent domain to seize Justice Souter’s home and instead urge the state
legislature to pass a law forbidding Kelo-type seizures. All in all, a
sensible measure although the irony that voters had to pass such a
proposal was not lost on Logan Darrow Clements, the Los Angeles
businessman who came up with the idea of building the “Lost Liberty
Hotel” on Mr. Souter’s property. “The vote makes Souter the only person
in the United States with special protection against his own ruling,” he
told reporters.
But efforts to afford other Americans that same protection are
proceeding smartly at the federal, state and local level, led by the
Institute for Justice’s “Castle Coalition.” The U.S. House has passed a
bill to bar federal funds from being used to make improvements on any
lands seized for private development. One of its key supporters is
liberal Democrat John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary
Committee. He notes that the NAACP, Operation PUSH and the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights all believe that “this court opinion makes it
too easy for private property to be taken,” a practice that has been
“used historically to target the poor, people of color and the elderly.”
One person who felt herself targeted was Wilhelmina Dery, an 88-year-old
resident of the New London, Conn. neighborhood that was at the center of
the Kelo decision. The city had teamed up with the drug company Pfizer
to promote building a modern “urban village” in Ms. Dery’s neighborhood,
which would have forced her out of the home in which she had been born
in 1918. Ms. Dery and her neighbors may have lost their Supreme Court
battle, but they appear to have won the war. In the wake of the Kelo
uproar, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has promoted an alternative that
would create an “enclave” to protect all 15 homes while the Pfizer
project is built around it.
Unfortunately, Ms. Dery did not live to see it. She died quietly at home
last Sunday after a long illness. “She was a wonderful lady and I’m glad
we were able to grant her final wish,” Scott Bullock, an attorney for
the Institute for Justice, told an audience at a Smith Family Foundation
eminent domain debate last night here in New York. “Her courage in
taking on New London in an effort to save her home will be remembered by
many of the more than 10,000 other families and businesses who face
eminent domain proceedings every year in the United States.”

Paul seems to be pretty much a lone voice in the media in New Mexico so far. Here is an interesting update from New Hampshire:

America, Where What’s Yours Is Ours (IJ)
03/15/2006
Day, The
Marc Guttman
Weare, N.H., citizens voted yesterday on two candidates for Board of Selectmen who ran on the platform of seizing Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s home to build The Lost Liberty Hotel in retaliation for his vote in the Court’s decision on Kelo v. New London. While this proposed initiation of force is no more right than the one legalized by the court last summer, it redraws attention to an issue of national importance.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in the public’s interest of local economic improvement, it is legal for the government of New London to seize privately owned homes and deliver them to private developers. The property owners, represented by the libertarian firm, the Institute for Justice, argued that the city violated the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which allows government to take property for a “public use” as long as it provides just compensation.
The Court’s ruling embraced a broad concept of what constitutes a public use and infringed on the property rights of these unfortunate citizens. New London’s action is simply theft. The initiation of force, even for a perceived good, will always lead us down harmful paths. This ruling has caused many to pause to consider whether they truly own what they have earned or whether everything belongs to the state and those able to garner government’s favors. This has been a concern of libertarian-minded people since our country’s inception.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointees of former President Bill Clinton, joined Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter in the majority decision. They affirmed, “the disposition of this case therefore turns on the question of whether the city’s development plan serves a ‘public purpose’ … promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized.”
Please check the Constitution. Promoting economic development is not a function of our government, and there is a principled way of distinguishing economic development from “public purposes.” Private enterprise in no way falls into what critically needs to be a narrow and firm definition of a “public good,” such as clean air and water. If we choose not to stick with a strict definition of true public goods, then what you have earned for your family belongs to who ever can gain government favor, whether it is the wealthy contributors or the agenda of a powerful voting block whose votes politicians are eager to secure.
A definition of public good should not be what the voting majority decides. This is why the framers, who abhorred democracy, created a constitutional republic that would protect the individual from the “tyranny of the majority.” To them, democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner. The recent oppression of New London’s citizens is another example.
People are free to interact with one another through voluntary trade, negotiation, and cooperation, not by infringing on property rights, lives or liberty. In the absence of an incontestable public good, we should not support companies stripping people of their property through government force any more than we should support companies using thugs with axe-handles. The Supreme Court has made such theft legal, but it cannot make it moral.
Libertarian-minded people agree with the dissenting opinion of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and William Rehnquist, that, “the Court abandons this long-held basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, as long as it might be upgraded … but the fallout from the decision will not be random. Beneficiaries are likely to be citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with few resources to those with more.”
Justice Thomas said seizing homes for private development, even with “just compensation,” is unconstitutional. “The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,” Thomas wrote. “So-called ‘urban renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.”
Since the Kelo decision, we have seen two patterns nationwide. While several communities are drafting legislation to strengthen local property rights, many communities emboldened by the ruling are moving to acquire land from private citizens to redistribute to corporations, developers,and to preserve as open space.
So that people will not have “disproportionate influence” over others, it is necessary to reclaim the extended, unconstitutional powers government has stolen from the individual over the last several decades. George Washington rightly explained that government is force. This force must be contained and not wielded by the highest bidders. Our government was to protect us from force and fraud, not initiate it.
Marc Guttman lives in Niantic.

HT: Mickey Barnett

Check out Paul’s column in todays Albuquerque Journal (sr). Excerpt:

In June 2005, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London made eminent domain abuse constitutional by interpreting the Fifth Amendment to mean that any eminent domain taking, even for the express benefit of another private entity was legal as long as the condemning authority had a “plan” and officials believed that some public benefit would result from the taking.
Although the court’s decision was a tremendous blow to property owners everywhere, the court explicitly allowed for the possibility that states could place restrictions on the use of eminent domain. That is exactly what had been happening nationwide as more than 40 states have bills under consideration and six states had already passed bills to address the court’s decision. In fact, until Richardson’s veto, no governor had opposed efforts to limit Kelo’s reach.
It is surprising that the governor sees no problem in allowing state and local governments unfettered power to take people’s homes and small business. Even more surprising is that a man faces re-election this year and who by all accounts wants to run for president in 2008 would choose to take such an unpopular stand.

Richardson has vetoed eminent domain restrictions in New Mexico. Read Paul’s commentary here. Nicely done, Paul.

Be sure to eat an animal on March 15, but don’t forget to kill it first.

I was deeply saddened to learn of Harry’s death. See tribute at Reason here.

As I informed you the other day free speech is under assault. Now you can respond to something specific:

Basic Message from: FreeCongress.org – (edited by Land Rights Network)
Grassroots Lobbying In Danger
You must call the Senators listed below immediately and insist that they vote against any section or amendment that hurts grassroots lobbying. Section 105 of S. 2128 is a bad section. There will likely be an amendment that also would threaten grassroots lobbying. No language should be added that has the intent of section 105.
Thursday, March 2nd the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is expected to mark up S.2128, a lobbying reform measure introduced by Sen. John McCain. The time for the markup is 10 AM and it will be in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Your calls and faxes will be good through 12:00 Noon Eastern Time Thursday.
Action Items:
—–1. Call your Senator to oppose S.2128. Any Senator may be called at (202) 224-3121.
—–2. Call any Senator listed below. Especially Senator John McCain.
—–2. Fax your Senator. When you call ask for the fax number.
—–3. Call at least three other people to get them to call and fax.
Time is urgent. You must take action immediately.
*****Everyone should contact Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is a key author of this bill: — (202) 224-2235 – FAX: (202) 224-2862. He is likely to be a candidate for President. He needs to know how much the grassroots does not like S. 2128.
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Republicans:
Susan M. Collins (R-ME) (Chair) – (202) 224-2523 – FAX: (202) 224-2693
Ted Stevens (R-AK) – (202) 224-3004 – FAX: (202) 224-2354
George Voinovich (R-OH) – (202) 224-3353 – FAX: (202) 228-1382
Norm Coleman (R-MN) – (202_ 224-5641 – FAX: (202) 224-1152
Tom Coburn (R-OK) – (202) 224-5724 – FAX: (202) 224-6008
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) — (202) 224-2921 – FAX (202) 228-2853
Robert Bennett (R-UT) — (202) 224-5444 – FAX: (202) 228-1168
Pete Domenici (R-NM) – (202) 224-6621 – FAX: (202) 228-3261
John Warner (R-VA) –(202) 224-2023 – FAX (202) 224-6295
Democrats:
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) (Ranking) – (202) 224-4041 – FAX: (202) 224- 9750
Carl Levin (D-MI) – (202) 224-6221 – FAX: 202) 224-1388
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) – (202) 224-6361 – FAX: (202) 224-2126
Thomas Carper (D-DE) – (202) 224-2441 – FAX: (202) 228-2190
Mark Dayton (DFL-MN) – (202) 224-3244 – FAX: (202) 228-2186
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) — (202) 224-3224 – FAX: (202) 228-4054
Mark Pryor (D-AR) – (202) 224-2353 – FAX: (202) 228-0908
Background:
Many grassroots activist groups are concerned about Section 105 of S. 2128 which calls for the filing of detailed reports by vendors that have been hired by grassroots groups. Not only is the reporting burdensome but the reports are detailed enough to provide tip-offs on strategy and tactics.
Essentially the measure would provide an edge to well-heeled groups that can look at what the opposition is doing and react accordingly with expenditures. In other words, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence would know what grassroots gun groups plan to do and can plan to respond accordingly. The same could hold true when it comes to grassroots property groups mounting protests against well-heeled townships and developers in post-Kelo cases.
It is uncertain whether Senator McCain has made a significant change to Section 105 or dropped it from his bill. Word has been circulating that an amendment to do the things expressed in Section 105 will be introduced in the committee on Thursday.
What is clear is that this section or an amendment that embodies the intent of Section 105 would have a detrimental impact on grassroots lobbying activities.
Bradley A. Smith, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and Stephen M. Hoersting, Executive Director of the Center for Competitive Politics, wrote last month in National Review Online:
Far from being the problem, grassroots lobbying is part of the solution to restoring the people’s faith in Congress. …
“Grassroots lobbying” is merely encouragement of average citizens to contact their representatives about issues of public concern. It is not “lobbying” at all, as that phrase is normally used outside the beltway, meaning paid, full-time advocates of special interests meeting in person with members of Congress away from the public eye,
Contact between ordinary citizens and members of Congress, which is what “grassroots lobbying” seeks to bring about…is ordinary citizens expressing themselves. That they are “stimulated” to do so by “grassroots lobbying activities” is irrelevant. These are still individual citizens motivated to express themselves to members of Congress.
It’s important to preserve the ability of citizens to contact their Members of Congress without entangling those groups and their contractors in all kinds of red tape. Citizen activists get it. Does Senator McCain? Do the members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs get it? This issue is of vital concern to grassroots activists.
Whether it is Section 105 or an amendment that is aimed at grassroots lobbying, it is important for grassroots activists to fight to preserve unfettered grassroots lobbying. K Street has their mercenaries but there is no reason for Congress to crack down on American citizens expressing their honest to goodness viewpoints to their elected representatives.

Give Senator Domenici a call. It will only take a minute.

When it comes to saving your life or someone else’s wouldn’t you like to avoid the busybody elitist bureaucrats who think they know best?
If so, the voluntary organization LifeSharers is probably for you. Here is the latest report from LifeSharers:
LifeSharers is an innovative approach to increasing the number of registered organ donors in the United States. Members agree to donate their organs when they die. They also agree to offer their organs first to other members, if any member is a suitable match, before making them available to the general public.
LifeSharers gives people a chance to save their own life by agreeing to donate their organs when they die.
LifeSharers is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization staffed by unpaid volunteers. Please check out our web site at www.lifesharers.org.
MEMBERSHIP UPDATE
As of February 28th, LifeSharers has 3,927 members. This represents a 34% increase over last December’s total of 2,931 members. We have members in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
As of February 28th, 3,214 of our members have qualified for preferred access to the organs of fellow members. Members are eligible for preferred access 180 days after joining LifeSharers.
PRESS COVERAGE OF LIFESHARERS
St. Paul Asian-American Press
http://www.aapress.com/Archive/2006/webfeb17/h-organs.htm
WTNH New Haven TV Channel 8
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=4498034
Longmont Daily Times-Call
http://www.longmontfyi.com/Health-Story.asp?id=6003
COMMENTARY
A decision to inspire us all
http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_4501227,00.html
New approaches needed to secure organ donations
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/COLUMNIST29/602250331/-1/NEWS33
OTHER NEWS
New heart alternative expanding the transplant field
http://www.wowt.com/news/features/2/2352651.html
Livers from non-heart beating donors would boost organ supply
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060218114144.htm
Scientists want to ‘print’ organs rather than wait for them to be donated
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1603783&page=1
2005 sees record number of organ, tissue donations in Illinois and Northwest Indiana
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=60823
Organ transplants increased 10% last year in Southern California
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060207/latu131.html
What to do about the diabetes epidemic
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/2/prweb340394.htm
FREE LIFESHARERS BUMPER STICKERS
If you’d like a free LifeSharers bumper sticker for your car or truck, email us at info@lifesharers.org. Just tell us how many you want and where we should send them.
LIFESHARERS GIFT SHOP
The LifeSharers gift shop is open at http://www.cafepress.com/lifesharers. Please help spread the word about LifeSharers by buying and using products that carry our logo and message. Clothing, tote bags, mugs, buttons, magnets, and more are available. If there are other products you think we should add, please email us at info@lifesharers.org. We’ll add them if we can. When you make a purchase from the LifeSharers gift shop, $1 per item goes to support LifeSharers. The rest goes to CafePress.com.
LIFESHARERS BLOG
For breaking news about LifeSharers, please subscribe to the LifeSharers blog. You can see it here:
http://lifesharers.blogspot.com
LIFESHARERS DISCUSSION GROUP
You can communicate with other LifeSharers members by joining the LifeSharers discussion group on Yahoo! The purpose of the group is to facilitate discussion about organ donation and the LifeSharers organ donors network. You can join here:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/LifeSharers_discussion/join
PLEASE HELP SUPPORT LIFESHARERS
LifeSharers is staffed by unpaid volunteers, and we rely on financial support from our members to cover our operating expenses. Please send us a financial contribution. We’ll put it to good use recruiting new members and maintaining our web site and member database. To see how easy it is to contribute to LifeSharers go here:
http://www.lifesharers.org/contribute.htm
LifeSharers is a qualified 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Contributions to LifeSharers are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

New Mexico ranks 28th friendliest among the 50 states in the Tax Foundations new index.
The good news is NM ranks #1 (friendliest) for individual and business wealth (meaning property) taxes.
The bad news is that NM ranks #48 for its gross receipts tax. It looks to me like the weight given to the gross receipts tax understates its adverse effect on NM’s business climate.

Bruce Bartlett explains why Bush is a big government conservative. The Bush administration is not one that “believes in the historical conservative philosophy of small government, federalism, free trade and the Constitution as originally understood by the Founding Fathers.” Bartlett provides lots of examples.
For more check out this interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Paul Gigot.

While he calls them “conservatives,” I think George Will actually means classical liberals. That’s okay. Most people don’t know what a classical liberal is these days. Will hits the nail on the head when he says they understand the law of unintended consequences.

The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.
Conservatives’ pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised — they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes — government — they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity — it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

Good article — suggest you read the whole thing.

The National Taxpayers Union has just released its ratings. Each “rating, based on hundreds of roll call votes, is considered the most comprehensive scorecard available on federal tax, spending, and regulatory issues.” Here they are for New Mexico:
Steve Pearce 55% (C+)
Heather Wilson 46% (C-)
Tom Udall 12% (F)
Jeff Bingaman 17% (F)
Pete Domenici 66% (B)

No matter where you are in the political spectrum you should defend our precious liberty to speak our mind. Kerri Houston has formed a new coalition called “Lobbysense” to do just that. Here is their statement of principles:

From the birth of the American experience, citizen expression has been the heart of political discourse.
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the rights of free speech and the right to “petition the government.” Armed with ingenuity, passion and recognition of the power inherent in a collective voice, the American public developed a wide range of grassroots and public policy organizations, large and small, structured and ad hoc, that provide them with an outlet to communicate a cohesive message to their elected officials.
With the national spotlight focused on illegal and abhorrent behavior demonstrated in the Abramoff lobbying “scandal,” our national conscience is ignited, in turn providing an opportunity to target systemic problems that allowed abuse of the system by a few offenders.
Conversely, Congress could overreach politically, and unnecessarily diminish the rights of the many for misguided public image purposes.
As Congress moves under public pressure to swiftly enact “lobby” reform, we believe that catastrophic overreach is taking form in S. 2128/H.R. 4575, The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005, sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT).
Section 105 of this legislation would censure the citizen voice and significantly reduce the ability of grassroots organizations to continue to express and promote the peoples’ will.
The current lobbying scandal was not caused by grassroots nor public policy organizations either liberal, moderate or conservative, yet the harshest restrictions in this bill’s “lobby” reform target issue advocates and public policy educators.
Existing law was broken and then enforced; already those complicit in the lawbreaking face jail time and significant fines, and in time, more lawbreakers may be subject to the rule of law. As congressional staffers and corporate lobbyists are at the heart of the current scandal, it is incomprehensible that non-profit organizations, their supporters and members who carry concern for the nation into action, would be targeted for punishment for a scheme for which they had no complicity.
The overly broad provisions of The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005 will impose millions of dollars of regulatory costs, and adversely harm individuals and groups in their efforts to influence and affect public decisions.
The legislation defines grassroots lobbying as any attempt to influence the public, or to engage in lobbying contacts in support of a view or position. Under the terms of both bills grassroots lobbying would even include companies and organizations working in support of grassroots lobbying, such as researchers and consulting services involved in preparing information on issues and views.
Legions of citizen organizations, small businesses, and even individuals would become subject to onerous registration and reporting requirements, simply because they were trying to motivate the public to support a position or point of view.
The conscience of the American will, grassroots lobbying has been used by concerned U.S. citizens through the course of our history to assist in shaping public policy. Rev. Martin Luther King’s efforts to stimulate a grassroots movement in the early and mid-1960’s were instrumental in securing passage of legislation to secure the protections of all U.S. citizens regardless of race. Under the terms of s. 2128, and H.R. 4575, Rev. King would have been greatly hampered in his efforts to effectuate social change.
More recently, grassroots efforts have been heavily employed in efforts by organizations to express their views both in favor of and against then Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Grassroots on both sides of issues such as abortion, tax reform and the environment have stimulated public policy to advocate, educate and inform.
America’s “grassroots” are not inert plant life; they are people, citizens, voters. Grassroots activity is an integral part of the American fabric of freedom.
Although first proposing S. 2128, Senator McCain has reconsidered his position of grassroots restrictions in this bill. However, many Senators on the Government Reform Committee which has jurisdiction over this legislation such as Senators Lott (R-MO), Collins (R-ME), Lieberman (D-CT) and Feingold (D-WI) still believe that citizen restraints are a necessary part of lobby reform.
We hope that Members of Congress intent on a grassroots component will review their copy of the Constitution, meet with their constituents and then target reforms that bring transparency to lobbying money sent to Congress, embrace efforts to restrain the spending that lays at the heart of corruption, and enforce and strengthen penalties for those actually breaking ethics and lobbying laws.

Thanks, Kerri.